CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 février 2019

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 227 March 2019 Frantzeskaki v. Greece (dec.) - 57275/17, 58549/17, 58631/17 et al. Decision 12.2.2019 [Section I] Article 6 Administrative proceedings Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Retroactive reimbursement denied to taxpayers who had not challenged a social contribution before it was declared unconstitutional: inadmissible Article 14 Discrimination Retroactive reimbursement denied to taxpayers who had not challenged a social contribution before it was declared unconstitutional: inadmissible Facts – In 2010 a “pensioners’ solidarity contribution” was introduced, to be deducted on a monthly basis from public sector pensions, for the benefit of a “solidarity-between-generations insurance fund”. In 2017 the Court of Audit, ruling on an appeal against the new contribution, gave a pilot judgment declaring it unconstitutional, with immediate effect in all the proceedings already pending, but not applying to any new action to secure a retroactive reimbursement of amounts deducted from pensions for those pensioners who had not yet lodged a judicial or administrative appeal on the date of publication of the judgment. The present applications were lodged by several hundred pensioners who had thus been excluded from any reimbursement of deductions from their pensions between 2010 and 2017. Law – Article 6, taken separately or in conjunction with Article   14: The limitation of the applicants’ right of access to a court could be regarded as pursuing a legitimate aim: to avoid an incalculable burden on the budget and any undermining of the State’s capacity to continue to pay old-age pensions in a period that was particularly unfavourable for the public finances. As to the proportionality of this measure, the possibility for a supreme authority to adjust to a given timeframe the effects of a declaration of unconstitutionality, where, in exceptional circumstances, public interest considerations so required, could not be regarded as arbitrary. It might be necessary to avoid any manifestly excessive consequences of such a declaration in such a sensitive area as the economic policy of a country during a serious economic crisis. Moreover, the applicants still had the possibility of bringing judicial proceedings to obtain the reimbursement of the amounts deducted from their pensions subsequent to the publication of the Court of Audit’s judgment. As to the allegation of discrimination, the applicants were not in a comparable situation to that of pensioners who had already appealed to the Court of Audit prior to the publication of the judgment: the latter had taken the bold initiative of bringing judicial proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of the impugned provisions and had thus incurred costs for that purpose. In any event, the impugned measure had an objective and reasonable justification. In conclusion, the interpretation of domestic law by the Court of Audit did not appear arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable; there had been no disproportionate restriction affecting the very essence of the applicants’ right of access to a court or exceeding the national margin of appreciation. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). (See also Walden v. Liechtenstein (dec.), 33916/96, 16   March 2000, Information Note   16 ; Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v.   Poland , 23614/08, 30   November 2010, Information Note 135 ; and National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v.   the United Kingdom , 21319/93 et al., 23   October 1997)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes